Best place to understand the switch is John Harris' film made during the GE '15 campaign:So what's the story on the huge pasting Labour took in Scotland this time around?
Are Scottish Labour seen as Blairites or hopelessly crooked or something?
It's not clear that that has happened. But it is clear that what lost the SNP their majority is the Tories gaining 4 constituency seats. (Rather than the paranoid nonsense about RISE splitting the regional votes: RISE did even worse than the nothing at all that was predicted).That and the unionist labour vote has switched to Tory, imo.
RISE did even worse than the nothing at all that was predicted).
I've been looking at the results, and I don't think this is what's happened at all, although I can see how both the apparently mirrored gains/losses and the explanatory narrative make that a tempting analysis.That and the unionist labour vote has switched to Tory, imo.
The SNP/Tory polarisation suits the SNP (and the Tories for that matter). The SNP now gets to consolidate its position as the way you vote against the Tories in Scotland. Too weak a Scottish Tory party makes that less of a threat. Labour are now confirmed as an irrelevance in that story. It's hard to see how Labour can break out of that.The SNP should propose redrawing the England/Scotland border along the top of that blue bit
That was a very interesting bit of film. It really was - the whole "entitled" attitude of Tom Clarke - it was so striking. And the bit where one of his tame "I will bring this journalist to visit you" constituents mentioned Keir Hardie, then it suddenly became very VERY urgent to stop the thing at once. Was quite funny. At the time, I sent the link to my Dad, and he doesn't read the "Guardian" and wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Ha! His reaction to it was quite something.B
Best place to understand the switch is John Harris' film made during the GE '15 campaign:
The strange death of Labour Scotland – video
I have to confess that I am part of the bad turnout, as I did not manage to go and vote. Not for any political reason, though.You mean it does or it doesn't?
Top end is only 5 points behind Westminster UK wide turnout last year (in recent years Wm turnouts have been even lower). Surely the most you can say is that an SNP win was widely thought to be a foregone conclusion, so people didn't see the need/point in turning out?
I am really pleased that Andy Wightman got elected.What'll be interesting now to see is that the SNP will need the Greens to get its majorities: what will give? This calls into question exactly the areas that the SNP conferences disagreed with the SNP leadership on (as discussed above): eg land reform, income tax, council tax, and fracking.
I've been looking at the results, and I don't think this is what's happened at all, although I can see how both the apparently mirrored gains/losses and the explanatory narrative make that a tempting analysis.
Look at the constituency seats:
View attachment 86573
The Tories have regained their former rural heartlands in the South and the North East. Labour, on the other hand, have lost their former industrial heartlands. In terms of FPTP constituencies, they now have fewer seats than the Lib Dems: only 3 to the Lib Dems' 4. Those red blotches are only 3 seats.
(The SNP is up 6 in the constituency tally. And that's why they lost regional seats: the d'Hondt arithmetic meant the Tories, whose vote share was second to the SNP overall in the lists, gained most there. The SNP couldn't gain more because of their constituency tally. In other words, broadly speaking, voting "both votes SNP" in the yellow areas in that map may have boosted the Tory tally overall).
... Looks like a definite "anybody but the SNP" protest vote going in parts of Edinburgh though
The Tories have regained their former rural heartlands in the South and the North East.
Well his moronic explanation was Don’t say we didn’t tell youWhat is that a reaction to? The moron.